-----Original Message-----
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:32:58 +0000
> From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <[email protected]>
> To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>, Jerin Jacob
>  <[email protected]>
> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Wiles, Keith" <[email protected]>,
>  "Richardson, Bruce" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/7] service cores: header and implementation
> 
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:55 AM
> > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; Van Haaren, Harry
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; Wiles, Keith <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce
> > <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] service cores: header and implementation
> > 
> > 11/07/2017 10:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > > IMO, We don't need to expose rte_service_private.h to application. If
> > > you agree, add the following or similar change
> > 
> > If it must not be exposed, the file should not have the prefix rte_
> > In doc/api/doxy-api.conf, every files with rte_ prefix will be processed
> > for doxygen documentation:
> >     FILE_PATTERNS = rte_*.h
> 
> 
> The service registration API should be exposed to the application.
> 
> Imagine a use case where the application wants to run services *and* an 
> application specific function on the same core.  In the current 
> implementation this is possible, as the application can register a service. 
> The app then configures all services (including its own "app-service") to run 
> on a service lcore.
> 
> If we hide the service registration from the application, we make it 
> impossible for the application to multiplex services and application specific 
> workloads on a single core.

Then we could move the registration functions to service.h.
IMO, It does not look correct if we expose _prviate.h to application or
we could rename to service_component.h or something like that.

> 
> 
> I strongly prefer of leaving the header as is. Given we have EXPERIMENTAL 
> tag, ABI/API are not a concern until later - we have time to figure out if 
> the service-registration API is good enough in current form, before we commit 
> to it.
> 
> I'll send v5 asap with headers as is.

Reply via email to